DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                  Complaint no. 596                                                                                         

                                                                Instituted on:   04.10.2016                                                                                   

                                                                Decided on:    05.04.2017

Maninder Singh son of Jarnail Singh resident  of village Palasour, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.        

                                                        …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Samsung India Electronic Private Limited B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pardesh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2.  Gaurav Communications, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk Gaushalla Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ authorized signatory.

3.     Pulkit Telecom Near Telephone Exchange Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its proprietor/authorized signatory.                                                                              ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri G.S.Shergill Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Shri  J.S.Sahni,  Advocate                         

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2          :      Exparte                         

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3           :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate.

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Maninder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Samsung mobile bearing Model J-2 from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.8200/- vide invoice no. 1135 dated 11.12.2015 under one year warranty.   In the month of August, the mobile set in question started giving problem of display, automatically switches off i.e. becomes totally dead  and not switch on again  for  which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who advised to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  and after inspection/checking OP no.2 told the complainant that display of mobile set is damaged and cannot be cured.  The  complainant also  sent a letter  dated 24.09.2016 to the OP no.2 and requested to repair or replace the mobile set. The complainant approached the OPs no.2 and 3  number of times  but they refused to repair or to replace the set The Officials of the OP no.2 tampered the mobile set of the complainant and made a false  story of display damage. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to replace the mobile set with new one of same model or in the alternative to refund the purchase amount i.e. Rs.8200/- along with interest @12.5% per annum,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.1, it is submitted that complainant approached OP no.2 on 24.08.2016 and submitted his handset.  OP no.2 after  inspection  told the complainant that the display of the handset is broken/damaged. Due to  breaking of display it was a warranty void condition and repair was to be carried out on chargeable basis only.  It is denied that OP no.2 has obtained signatures of the complainant  on some blank performas.  it was further explained that due to breaking of display the handset is not covered  under warranty and repair will be done on chargeable basis, estimate cost of repair was given to the complainant but the complainant refused to get his handset repaired on chargeable basis. OP no.2 is still ready to repair the mobile on chargeable basis. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

4.             In reply filed by the OP no.3,  it is submitted that OPs never suggested the complainant to purchase the said Samsung Mobile and never gave  any assurance to the complainant. It is for the OPs no.1 and 2 who can gave guarantee or warranty to the customer, if any.

5.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/2 and closed evidence.

6.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.1 and 3, we find that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung company model J-2 from OP No.3 on 11.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.8200/- under warranty of one year which is evident from retail invoice dated 11.12.2015 which is Ex.C-1 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that after checking the mobile set the OP no.2 told him that display of mobile is damaged and cannot be cured. The complainant sent a letter dated 24.09.2016  to the OP no.2  and requested to repair or replace his mobile set but the OPs did not do so. The complainant further stated that the officials of the OP no.2 have tampered the mobile set of the complainant.  On the other hand, OPs have stated that on 24.08.2016  complainant approached him  and submitted his handset. After inspection  of handset it was found that display of the handset is broken/damaged and due to breaking of display it was a warranty void condition and repair was to be carried out on chargeable basis only.

7.             In his complaint, the complainant's specific allegation is that the Officials of the OP no.2 have tampered the mobile set in question and made a false story of display damage.        To prove his version, the complainant has not produced on record copy of any job sheet which shows that the mobile set was retained by the OPs with it for a day or more for checking/ inspection rather the OP no.2 has stated that after checking/ inspection the complainant was told that display of the handset is broken/ damaged due to breaking of display it was  a warranty void condition and repair was to be carried out  on chargeable basis only. It is matter of common knowledge that when the mobile set was not retained by the OP no.2 with it then there is no possibility of tampering it by their officials of the OPs. The complainant has stated that  a letter was sent to the OP no.2 on 24.09.2016 but no reply was received. From the perusal of copy of letter Ex.C-2 it shows that it was sent to Gaurav Communication authorized service customer care Centre r/o Opp. PWD Rest House, Near Railway Chowk Sangrur whereas the complainant in his complaint has mentioned the address of OP no.2 as  Gaurav Communications Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/ authorized signatory which shows that the complainant had sent the said letter to OP no.2 on a wrong address.  

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case and as such the present complaint is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 Announced

                April 5, 2017

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                Member                      Member                President

BBS/-